Executive Interviews: Pat Gelsinger Global Standards and Spectrum Policy Reform

"In advocating standards, Intel's position is technology neutral. We do not want any industry or device to be uniquely advantaged or disadvantaged. Our job is to make the PC great, but that doesn't mean making the DVD or the TV inferior in the process."
—Pat Gelsinger

Why is Intel involved in developing and promoting standards? Why are standards important?

For our traditional computing businesses, we've seen that standards are a very effective way to build ecosystems. Global standards have enabled the computer industry to establish new usage models, entirely new ways for people to use their PCs. The USB and PCI standards are two great examples.

Going forward, standards will be even more critical to Intel because of our increasing role in the communications space. For one device to communicate with another, both must be driven by the same standards. Thus as a company we've had to take our role in standards development to a whole new level to complement our focus on communications and convergence.

Why must standards be global? Why can't I just buy a product from China or Germany or the U.S., based on standards developed in those local markets?

Certainly Intel's business model requires global standards, so we can ship the same product to much of the world. That reduces our manufacturing costs and lowers the cost to our customers. Global standards also ensure that consumers have access to the best products from anywhere on the globe. I may buy a consumer electronics product that has IP [intellectual property] from the U.S., was designed in Korea, has a component from Japan, and was manufactured in Malaysia. To make this possible, everyone in the supply chain must be working off of the same international standards.

We believe that adopting global standards is a necessity, not just for us as a company but for entire nations. Standards will define how a nation participates in the global scene. In a world that is connected through the Internet, there is no such thing as a local market. Countries that choose to operate on their own standards are creating a local island that is removed from the global marketplace. We couldn't be more emphatic about this: for companies or nations to be globally competitive, they have to adopt global standards.

What is Intel's current role in developing global standards?

We thought we participated in a large number of standards bodies in the computing industry, so we were amazed at the number in the communications space; it's been quite an incredible learning experience. Right now we participate in more than 170 standards bodies around the world. In addition to our longstanding involvement with IEEE and groups like the Wi-Fi* Alliance and WiMAX Forum, we are working with standards bodies in China, Japan, Korea and the EU as well as in the U.S, not to mention the significant commitment within the ITU [International Telecommunication Union] at a global level. And we're also collaborating with groups in India, Brazil, and a growing number of countries that are working on different aspects of standards.

One of the accomplishments I'm most proud of is our co-founding of the DLNA [Digital Living Network Alliance], which is focusing on standards like UPnP*, to enable convergence in the home. The group includes key stakeholders from Asia, Europe and North America, which ensures the development of global standards that will enable consumers to access digital content anytime, anywhere, on any device.

The DLNA was the first standards body to cross consumer electronics, IT and mobile. Intel helped to bring these three industries together, to sit down and agree on standards so that devices can interoperate. I would say this is one of our major accomplishments in the standards space.

Standards are important, but they won't work without regulations in place throughout the world for the standards to work. Tell us a bit about Intel's efforts in the regulatory space.

Historically, our activities in the regulatory space were quite modest. They focused mainly on ensuring that export policies or other regulations didn't slow down our business. As we've moved into the communications space, our approach to dealing with regulatory bodies have changed from being somewhat defensive — trying to prevent policies that we see as barriers to our business — to enabling, helping to create new radio technology and usage models.

One way we do that is by advocating for spectrum reform. For us to create an innovative new radio, we need to have spectrum that it can operate in. WiMAX, without access to an appropriate spectrum, is as meaningless as a spectrum allocation with no radios to use it. Thus both standards and complementary spectrum regulations must be in place globally, to enable communications products that can be used anywhere in the world.

So we needed to establish a much higher level of participation in global standards and regulatory bodies. We want the same Wi-Fi component to work in Osaka as in Cheng Du as in Omaha, and that requires working with regulators around the world. Obviously we're not going to get all of the 189 member countries of the ITU aligned around global standards and spectrum reform, at least not in the short term, but we need a reasonable critical mass of them to justify investing in these new technologies.

What kinds of reforms are needed? What's wrong with current spectrum regulations?

The current spectrum management policies were driven in part by the radio technology of the 1940s and 1950s. The approach to spectrum management was what we now call "command and control." You could think of it as one general deciding at the national level the best way for that spectrum to be allocated. These allocations were typically tied to a specific technology. Television is one of the best examples; a certain amount of spectrum was allocated solely for use by TVs and under no circumstances, even if there was unused spectrum, could another service use this spectrum.

Spectrum policies were also driven heavily by defense department needs. So today there are large portions of the spectrum that were allocated specifically for defense purposes throughout the world.

The problem is that technology has outpaced policy. Today radios are smarter: they can be short range or long range, they can listen before they "talk," and they can coexist with other technologies operating in the same spectrum.

How do you persuade regulatory bodies and defense agencies that reforms are needed? How do you convince them that new and existing technologies can coexist in the same spectrum, without interference?

The first point I want to make is that their concerns are legitimate, and we need to address those concerns at multiple levels. If we're not going to operate under a command and control model of spectrum regulation, how are we going to operate in the future? It's our responsibility to articulate new models for regulatory frameworks, and to physically demonstrate that new technologies can coexist without causing interference. Finally, we have to show how these technologies can create new opportunities, whether for defense purposes or for consumer markets.

We're working hard to establish ourselves as respected and responsible partners, as we go through the process of building our credibility and the technical basis for our proposals. The way we're engaging with regulatory bodies is to bring a respectful and globally technology-relevant perspective. We've described the technologies we're working on and why we think they're important. But we've also brought a clear agenda about the reforms we think are needed, and which we think are in their best interest, not just our own.

What policies and spectrum reforms is Intel advocating?

There are a few principles that we've rallied behind, including global harmonization of spectrum and the need for coexistence of both public (unlicensed) spectrum and regulated (licensed) spectrum. The idea of unlicensed spectrum was a foreign concept when regulations were established decades ago, but it's critical today. Technology neutrality — allowing free market development of new technologies to emerge within spectrum allocations, rather than dictating specific uses — is a much more flexible way to enable evolution and innovation.

We also want to see multiple pieces of spectrum, both licensed and unlicensed, allocated for technologies such as WiMAX, and we're trying to get new allocations of spectrum for WiMAX. Finally, we're trying to establish a low-frequency band, in the 700 MHz range, that is suitable for WiMAX. This will reduce the cost of deploying WiMAX technology as there's a huge capital cost difference depending on what portion of the spectrum you're allocated.

How are global regulators responding to Intel's advocacy efforts?

We've had remarkably positive results — and I emphasize "remarkably." Imagine you are a regulator. You are being lobbied by interests all day long, and you're trying to balance different industry perspectives and individuals. Why should you consider Intel's perspective any more than the other 50 companies you've seen that week?

I think there are several reasons why we have had good reception. Regulators respond to our principles and they respect our brand name and technology leadership. We've also done our homework: we walk in as engineers, with plenty of data about spectrum and interference and so on.

We also bring a truly global perspective, and that differentiates us from companies that do most of their business within their own country. And as a building block supplier, we are what I call "quasi neutral," which makes us somewhat more credible. We don't care if a particular product comes from Dell, Cisco, Nokia or any other specific company. We're committed to the advancement of the overall technology and the marketplace.

Because of all of these factors, we have far more credibility with global regulatory bodies than you would expect of a company without a long history in the communications space. And we're getting a lot done as a result.

Now it's important to note that we're not working alone in advocating for change. Before we formulate Intel's positions and recommendations, we do our homework with our industry peers and our customers. We strive to understand their views and address their concerns, and this further enhances our credibility and ultimate influence. These efforts at coalition building are essential to our success in dealing with global regulatory agencies.

Where do we stand today, in terms of global standards and spectrum reform? How far have we come, and how far do we still have to go?

The incremental progress is very encouraging. We are seeing good acceptance of the individual arguments and technologies that we are putting forward, at least in some of the more technologically advanced countries, such as Korea, China, and the U.S. We're also making an impact in other parts of the world. India has embraced our recommendations and incorporated them into the public policy of that country. We've meaningfully moved forward some of the discussions in Korea also. And we've had great success in helping to resolve the EU's concerns over embracing Wi-Fi. Today the EU is fully supportive of Wi-Fi deployment across Europe. In the U.S., the FCC is a world leader in adopting new technology standards such as UWB (Ultra Wideband), which Intel had a substantive role in driving.

So we can point to some real successes in this domain over the last couple of years. But while we're making good progress, it could take nearly a decade before we see technologies such as "smart" radios and the spectrum reforms required for them to operate, because this represents such a dramatic shift. We're trying to change a regulatory framework that's been in place for more than 60 years, and that won't happen overnight. But by continuing to build strong coalitions and actively participate in standards bodies worldwide, we believe that we're headed down the right path.

About Patrick Gelsinger

Patrick Gelsinger is senior vice president and co-general manager of Intel Corporation's Digital Enterprise Group. He has been with Intel since 1979 and has more than 20 years of experience in general management and product development positions. He has received numerous Intel and industry recognition awards, and his promotion to group vice president at age 32 made him the youngest vice president in the history of the company.